On Friday the Defense Department released its new National Security Space Strategy (or, to be precise, an unclassified summary of that document). The document provides a high-level overview of the goals of US national security space activities and the broad issues associated with achieving them. The strategy, said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in a statement, “is a pragmatic approach to maintain the advantages we derive from space while confronting the new challenges we face.”
An initial read through the document doesn’t turn up much in the way of major new initiatives or other surprises. If you’ve been following some of the discussion and debate about national security space issues, or even read the National Space Policy released by the Obama Administration last June, much of the language here will look familiar. For example, the report emphasizes three trends often called the “Three C’s” of the modern space environment: congested (orbital debris), contested (ASATs and other activities to disrupt space systems), and competitive (the growing number of countries with space systems, and their increasing capabilities.)
A few highlights from the report:
Although there’s been reports the US is willing to sign on to the EU’s draft code of conduct for outer space activities, the strategy does not explicitly support it. It does, though, identify the need for “responsible, peaceful, and safe use of space”, including support for measures such as “best practices, transparency and confidence-building measures, and norms of behavior for responsible space operations”, similar to language in the national space policy.
The report highlights the need for a space industrial base in the US that is “robust, competitive, flexible, healthy, and delivers reliable space capabilities on time and on budget.” To achieve that, the strategy highlights a number of measures, including increased emphasis on technology development, shorter development cycles, and export control reform. “Reforming export controls will facilitate U.S. firms’ ability to compete to become providers-of-choice in the international marketplace for capabilities that are, or will soon become, widely available globally, while strengthening our ability to protect the most significant U.S. technology advantages,” the document states.
The strategy also indicates a willingness to partner with or purchase services from commercial providers. “We will rely on proven commercial capabilities to the maximum extent practicable, and we will modify commercial capabilities to meet government requirements when doing so is more cost-effective and timely for the government,” the report states. “We will develop space systems only when there is no suitable, cost-effective commercial alternative or when national security needs dictate.”
Cooperation with other countries and companies on the area of space situational awareness (SSA) is also highlighted in the report, saying that while the US is the leader in SSA, it seeks to “establish agreements with other nations and commercial firms to maintain and improve space object databases, pursue common international data standards and data integrity measures, and provide services and disseminate orbital tracking information, including predictions of space object conjunction, to enhance spaceflight safety for all parties.”
“We will rely on proven commercial capabilities to the maximum extent practicable, and we will modify commercial capabilities to meet government requirements when doing so is more cost-effective and timely for the governmentâ€
Not that Congress is listening, but it just goes to show that EVERYWHERE you look in space policy, whether it’s the NSSS, the VSE or even the latest Congressional Space Authorization Act, NASA is supposed to be looking to commercial alternatives first. Only if commercial cannot meet their needs should NASA be looking at in-house solutions.
Of course NASA under the current administration wants to use commercial more, but it is the Congress that doesn’t want to give up the money flowing to certain NASA contractors that is making NASA be less cost effective with their budget.
NASA is just a small part of the overall budget, and likely won’t get too much attention in the broader budget battles to be fought in the months ahead, but it will be interesting to see what the Republican led House does regarding promoting the commercial sector vs government-run systems. Should be very telling…
I find it kind of amusing that when it comes to *actual* national security, the DoD has no problem leveraging commercial capabilities to the maximum extent possible. Much more so in fact than NASA. This speaks volumes, IMO.
~Jon
At what point did we replace “practical” with “practicable”? Is “practicable” a word best suited for government contracts because it has a subtly different meaning??
“It does, though, identify the need for “responsible, peaceful, and safe use of spaceâ€, (a hilarious concept from DoD- very ‘Peace Is Our Business’ Kubrickesque of them) including support for measures such as “best practices, transparency (in the military? LOL) and confidence-building measures, and norms of behavior for responsible space operationsâ€, similar to language in the national space policy.”… “We will rely on proven commercial capabilities (<- proven? OOPS!) to the maximum extent practicable, and we will modify commercial capabilities to meet government requirements when doing so is more cost-effective and timely for the government,†the report states. “We will develop space systems only when there is no suitable, cost-effective commercial alternative or when national security needs dictate.†And that "cost-effective alternative" rests in tapping the assets already on hand for government use at NASA.
Of course, in the Age of Austerity, you only 'purchase' what you need when you have to borrow 41 cents of every dollar you spend– and assets already exist under the guise of NASA. Yes, in the Age of Austerity what better way to enhance these policies to the "maximum extent practicable" than to make smart use of what you have paid for alireadd, fold NASA under its wing through this economically difficult period for the country– for the economic good and national security needs of the nation. But then, Gates will be gone soon and policy proposals from his desk may very well end up in the circular file.
“This speaks volumes, IMO.”
They leverage commercial because they have no manned space program- they just launch sats. What volume? They do not put people up and yet they spend twice as much as NASA. That speaks volumes IMO.
• Prepare to defeat attacks and to operate in a degraded environment.
This line would suggest DoD has done war game scenarios with major actions in space. I’d love to read the write-ups but suppose they are in the classified portion. Suspect they could be a major motivator if Congress needs any impetus. Wonder if they’ll be “leaked”?
“”cost-effective alternative” rests in tapping the assets already on hand for government use at NASA.”
Wrong, the cost-effective alternative are not NASA.
“yet they spend twice as much as NASA. ”
Of course they do. They have more tasks to perform.
Because they maintain large constellations like GPS, and comm systems like WGS/AEHF/MOUS. Then there is the IR missile watchers, weather sats, and the reconsats.
There is nothing that is out of place here. Just your inane posts.
@Byeman wrote @ February 5th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
So you’re either asserting that NASA is not a cost-effective ‘asset’ worth continued taxpayer funding in an Age of Austerity, (an age where 41 cents of every dollar spent on it is borrowed) hence worthy of deep, deep cuts or outright dissolution to save money or you’re a shill for commerical space, which has a minimal future, particulary w/respect to DoD space operations.
Bennett wrote @ February 5th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
“At what point did we replace “practical†with “practicableâ€? Is “practicable†a word best suited for government contracts because it has a subtly different meaning??”
Yes, practical and practicable have slightly different meanings. As I understand it, practical is something that is reasonable to do while practicable is something that is possible to do. Something can be practicable but not practical.
DCSCA, neither. wrong as usual and clueless
NASA has no assets, cost effective or otherwise that the DOD needs or desires.
As for commercial space, it has a large future w/respect to DoD space operations. Launch operations is one of these area. Commercial comsat buses are readily adaptable for milsats.
Byeman wrote @ February 6th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
“Commercial comsat buses are readily adaptable for milsats.”
AEHF, WGS, MUOS and SBIRS use commercial comsat buses already.
@Byeman wrote @ February 6th, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Then we don’t need NASA. Get your resume ready.
Rhyolite wrote @ February 6th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Thanks man. The lexicon is always changing and sometimes I’m not sure what is fashion versus definitive. That I never ran into the word “practicable” in 45 years of reading mystifies me.
DCSCA, you have consistently shown that you don’t know what NASA does. Your constant bleating about the DOD taking over NASA is proof of this. I have little to worry about, my job is very secure.
Pick up any “Big Blue Sleeping Pill” (US Navy aircraft NATOPS manual) and you will find the word “practicable” used quite often. Always sounded wrong to me, but then came the word “stratergery” and I figured…whatever…
“Practicable” is also used in aviation jargon: In such things like if the weather deteriorates you should land as soon as practicable, i.e. if you’re not IFR rated don’t f…ool around.
Pick up any “Big Blue Sleeping Pill†(US Navy aircraft NATOPS manual)…
And it worked real well in that capacity back in the day when I was a CH-46E helicopter crew chief in the Corps, lol.
I imagine it’s thicker now…zzzzzZZZZ!!
Fred and Common Sense, Thanks! My lack of a military background explains it.
In ’76 the ROTC was not popular in the SF bay area. In retrospect, it was probably the perfect time to serve the country and end up with a solid retirement plan…
> “Practicable†is also used in aviation jargon
I’m particularly fond of “certificated.” It appears to be a slightly real word, but always sounds otherwise.
@ Bennett wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Don’t have to go military for that. Just look for it in there:
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atbarc/04-5.htm
@common sense
Okay, exposure to military OR ATC handbooks.
common sense wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 12:48 am
“Practicable†is also used in aviation jargon:..
Practical is one of those words which implies “judgment”.
Robert G. Oler
@Byeman wrote @ February 6th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Spoken like a NACA bureaucrat circa 1957. The number one thing NASA does, as far as the people of the United States are concerned, is spend appropriated budgets of which 41 cents of every dollar is borrowed as it is enveloped in the Age of Austerity.
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ February 7th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
“Practical is one of those words which implies “judgmentâ€.”
I think you meant “practicable” implies judgement? Practical+able=practicable.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&defl=en&q=define:practicable&sa=X&ei=TXRRTa6-CIaWsgPtoJjIBg&ved=0CBMQkAE